Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. I am essentially opposed to burning books even when they incite others to violence. But freedom is either an absolute or it is conditioned on not inciting others to violence. Anything else is rationalized bigotry.

Search This Blog

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Why I began labeling Guardian Readers and their ilk “The Fascist Left”

Madeleine Albright was the first woman to become the United
States Secretary of State when she was sworn in on January 23, 1997.

According to Wikipedia “Albright was raised Catholic, but
converted to Episcopalianism at the time of her marriage in 1959. She did not
learn until adulthood that her parents were originally Jewish and that many of
her Jewish relatives in Czechoslovakia
had perished in the Holocaust, including three of her grandparents.” It
was during her tenure as Secretary of State that she learned of her Jewish
religious background (or so she claimed at the time).

It was when her family history was mischievously ‘revealed’
by Britain’s
Guardian Newspaper that I became forever alienated from that racist
publication. They editorialized that the knowledge of her antecedents
made for an unbridgeable conflict of interest between her Jewish ‘past’ and her
senior American administration position as Secretary of State and therefore she
had no choice but to resign from that position. It was a moment of shocking
clarity for me, my Damascene conversion.

Not everyone is obsessed by their family past. It is
highly likely that Madeleine Albright was telling the truth when she disavowed
any knowledge of her antecedents, likely but irrelevant.

We do not ever repudiate a persons’ right to express
themselves because of their race, their religion, their color, their ethnicity,
their sex or their sexuality. That is one of the fundamental rights that
inhere in a democratic system. To state that a politician should not have
an opinion is absurdly illogical. In fact, I cannot stress enough how infantile
the Guardian editorial was. If we assume the sanity of the Guardian Newspapers’
editorial staff then the only possible explanations for making such a statement
was either temporary insanity or a concealed agenda.

British society is divided between people whose humility
obviates a reasoned understanding of every situation before judging others and
those people who in their egotistical arrogance are offended when we do not
immediately bow before their superior knowledge and understanding of
everything. This ‘protean fascism’ is an intrinsic element of a society separated
by Class; while superficially divided between Left and Right this attitude is,
in reality, educationally if not psychologically inbred. It helps to explain
the antisemitism that is rarely if ever absent from British society; whose flow
is constant, just beneath the surface of British society. Its adoption by
the Left and their Liberal allies is unsurprising in a country where
successfully adapting to change has kept the ruling oligarchy whether
aristocratic or upper class, firmly in control throughout history (excepting
for a minor hiccough when the monarchy was deposed between 1649 and 1660).

This ‘protean fascism’ has no natural political home but in
the United Kingdom
it is now a disease of the Left more than the Right. Perhaps this is because
conservatives have had to learn from history about the limitations of human
insight while the Left (and that includes far too many people who mislabel
themselves as liberals) have not.

In any case, as long as Jews turned the other cheek, the
Guardian reader (and this also applies to the BBC and the New York Times) could
tolerate us and our presence in society. Israel’s defeat of its existential
Arab enemy in the Six Day War of 1967 ended that post Shoah honeymoon period
between abuser and victim.

I understand why the Guardian staked out its position of
prejudice against the “psychically tainted” Madeleine Albright. Nuance is
lost on the fascist. The reasoning would have been that only someone who was
“detached” from a conflict could bring an unbiased approach to solving that
conflict. In a fascist environment detachment is determined by self-appointed power
brokers, in this case, Britain’s
Guardian Newspaper. But the premise is logically unsupportable in any but a
politically racist context.

Enemies fail to relate to each as being equal in humanity
because they are unable or unwilling to recognize their mutual antipathy and
with no clear understanding of their reciprocal fears.

The Guardian position was dissimulation at its most
racist. No Guardian editor would have argued for the exclusion of a
Protestant from negotiating the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement, or,
that the pivotal role played by George J Mitchell in formulating that agreement
was unacceptable because of his ethnic (Irish Catholic) descent. During
WW2 the Nazis questioned the role of a president with a German sounding name (Roosevelt) in waging a war against them. They said that
if he opposed Nazism then he must be Jewish!

Nations have a vested interest in resolving conflict. The
Guardian implication that a person whose entire life had been lived as a
practicing Christian was somehow corrupted by Jewish ‘feelings’ was the
kind of thinking publicly expressed during the Second World War in Germany.

It really is that simple.

I have never read a disavowal of that Guardian ‘principle’
nor are any of us likely to do so because the Guardian Newspaper romanticizes
only dead Jews and its house Jews (the pejorative term “useful Jews” carries
less of a contemporary appreciation of the concept); its European post-Nation
State political theology associates all Jews with a European identity which
therefore negates any Jewish self-determination as archaic and therefore,
worthy only of disdain.

On the day that up to three million people came together
throughout France to protest the murder of 17 human beings by followers of a
“strictly literalist and uncompromising version of Islam applied with
aggressive intolerance” (Charles Allen) a BBC journalist (Tom Willcox)
interrogated the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, urging her to see a
connection between two warring nations and Muslims driven by hatred of almost everything
the West stands for. Hillary Clinton, who hopes to be the next President
of the United States of
America called for us to empathize with cold
blooded killers who rejoice in the act of slaughtering their victims and who,
would have happily murdered hundreds of children if given the
opportunity. (Because of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, three Jewish
schools in the near vicinity of the store that was subsequently targeted were
closed).

The contagion that is Britain’s Guardian Newspaper has
spread far and wide.

Not all narratives are equal. Encouraging a series of
fallacious narratives in order to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear
for a targeted group is fascism. Selectively censoring our rights because
we are Zionists or Israeli is Fascism. The Guardian has provided a
safe-haven for the spread of fascism. Fascism is a step on the way to something
far worse, a fascist ideology that specifically targets Jews. Neither
Left wing fascism nor right wing fascism, in the end, makes any difference to
“my kind” or those people that support me because the end solution is
inevitably the final solution.

Madeleine Albright was sworn in as US Secretary of State on January 23, 1997. There is no way that I have articles on electronic file going back that far although I may have a paper copy. That said, there are some things such as when President Kennedy was assassinated, 9/11 and when the Guardian Newspaper formerly put the Jews back in their place that you never forget.